diff options
author | Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org> | 2007-06-07 00:00:45 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | Gerald (Jerry) Carter <jerry@samba.org> | 2007-10-10 14:53:12 -0500 |
commit | 90539985db53540f1f7b8d9250105e4bb9cf8093 (patch) | |
tree | 689a640589c3a8b0c27757940398728d1b5c04e3 | |
parent | c74ad3546c57bef9b324a324585431081c5cbf30 (diff) | |
download | samba-90539985db53540f1f7b8d9250105e4bb9cf8093.tar.gz samba-90539985db53540f1f7b8d9250105e4bb9cf8093.tar.bz2 samba-90539985db53540f1f7b8d9250105e4bb9cf8093.zip |
r23370: Traverse in tdb wasn't consistently using the
travlocks.lock_rw for lock read/write types, it
was sometimes using it (tdb_next_lock) and
sometimes explicitly using F_WRLCK instead.
Change this to consistently use travlocks.lock_rw
only.
I'm pretty sure about this fix (else I woudn't
be checking this in :-) but tridge and Volker
please review.
Jeremy.
(This used to be commit fa548ad75e945ae4d167baffb87140c90cba268c)
-rw-r--r-- | source4/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c | 18 |
1 files changed, 10 insertions, 8 deletions
diff --git a/source4/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c b/source4/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c index 1baf90e0f5..1580a0dd07 100644 --- a/source4/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c +++ b/source4/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c @@ -259,12 +259,15 @@ TDB_DATA tdb_firstkey(struct tdb_context *tdb) tdb->travlocks.off = tdb->travlocks.hash = 0; tdb->travlocks.lock_rw = F_RDLCK; + /* Grab first record: locks chain and returns record. */ if (tdb_next_lock(tdb, &tdb->travlocks, &rec) <= 0) return tdb_null; /* now read the key */ key.dsize = rec.key_len; key.dptr =tdb_alloc_read(tdb,tdb->travlocks.off+sizeof(rec),key.dsize); - if (tdb_unlock(tdb, BUCKET(tdb->travlocks.hash), F_WRLCK) != 0) + + /* Unlock the hash chain of the record we just read. */ + if (tdb_unlock(tdb, tdb->travlocks.hash, tdb->travlocks.lock_rw) != 0) TDB_LOG((tdb, TDB_DEBUG_FATAL, "tdb_firstkey: error occurred while tdb_unlocking!\n")); return key; } @@ -279,7 +282,7 @@ TDB_DATA tdb_nextkey(struct tdb_context *tdb, TDB_DATA oldkey) /* Is locked key the old key? If so, traverse will be reliable. */ if (tdb->travlocks.off) { - if (tdb_lock(tdb,tdb->travlocks.hash,F_WRLCK)) + if (tdb_lock(tdb,tdb->travlocks.hash,tdb->travlocks.lock_rw)) return tdb_null; if (tdb_rec_read(tdb, tdb->travlocks.off, &rec) == -1 || !(k = tdb_alloc_read(tdb,tdb->travlocks.off+sizeof(rec), @@ -290,7 +293,7 @@ TDB_DATA tdb_nextkey(struct tdb_context *tdb, TDB_DATA oldkey) SAFE_FREE(k); return tdb_null; } - if (tdb_unlock(tdb, tdb->travlocks.hash, F_WRLCK) != 0) { + if (tdb_unlock(tdb, tdb->travlocks.hash, tdb->travlocks.lock_rw) != 0) { SAFE_FREE(k); return tdb_null; } @@ -302,7 +305,7 @@ TDB_DATA tdb_nextkey(struct tdb_context *tdb, TDB_DATA oldkey) if (!tdb->travlocks.off) { /* No previous element: do normal find, and lock record */ - tdb->travlocks.off = tdb_find_lock_hash(tdb, oldkey, tdb->hash_fn(&oldkey), F_WRLCK, &rec); + tdb->travlocks.off = tdb_find_lock_hash(tdb, oldkey, tdb->hash_fn(&oldkey), tdb->travlocks.lock_rw, &rec); if (!tdb->travlocks.off) return tdb_null; tdb->travlocks.hash = BUCKET(rec.full_hash); @@ -313,19 +316,18 @@ TDB_DATA tdb_nextkey(struct tdb_context *tdb, TDB_DATA oldkey) } oldhash = tdb->travlocks.hash; - /* Grab next record: locks chain and returned record, + /* Grab next record: locks chain and returns record, unlocks old record */ if (tdb_next_lock(tdb, &tdb->travlocks, &rec) > 0) { key.dsize = rec.key_len; key.dptr = tdb_alloc_read(tdb, tdb->travlocks.off+sizeof(rec), key.dsize); /* Unlock the chain of this new record */ - if (tdb_unlock(tdb, tdb->travlocks.hash, F_WRLCK) != 0) + if (tdb_unlock(tdb, tdb->travlocks.hash, tdb->travlocks.lock_rw) != 0) TDB_LOG((tdb, TDB_DEBUG_FATAL, "tdb_nextkey: WARNING tdb_unlock failed!\n")); } /* Unlock the chain of old record */ - if (tdb_unlock(tdb, BUCKET(oldhash), F_WRLCK) != 0) + if (tdb_unlock(tdb, BUCKET(oldhash), tdb->travlocks.lock_rw) != 0) TDB_LOG((tdb, TDB_DEBUG_FATAL, "tdb_nextkey: WARNING tdb_unlock failed!\n")); return key; } - |